The Hearing Protection Act is Getting a lot of Attention

Gun Watch ^ | 8 December, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

During the 2016 presidential election, President Donal Trump emphasized his support for the Second Amendment. I do not recall that he ever mentioned gun mufflers, silencers, or the Hearing Protection Act.

But the penumbra of his attention to the Second Amendment is having implications beyond his direct gaze. The President Elect is setting the tone, and people are falling in line.

The Hearing Protection Act, or HPA, was filed by Matt Salmon of Arizona. Matt has been a stand up guy for he Second Amendment. Matt is retiring this year, but the HPA will go forward in 2017.  The bill reforms the current archaic restrictions and regulations on gun mufflers or silencers.  Those restrictions are from the 1930s and never made any sense.

The rest of the world does not share America's self imposed prohibition on gun mufflers.  In the rest of the world, silencers are regarded as a useful accessory, something that the neighbors appreciate because it reduces noise pollution.

In Europe, silencers are far less regulated than they are in the United States.  In New Zealand, a 12 year old can walk into a hardware store, pay $20, and walk out with a perfectly serviceable commercial silencer.

Before the election of Donald Trump, the HPA did not appear in the top ten of the most viewed bills before Congress.

After the election, in the week ending November 13th, the Hearing Protection Act was the second most viewed bill in Congress.

In the week ending November 20th, it was again the second most viewed bill in Congress.

In the week ending November 27th, it was the most viewed bill in Congress.

In the week ending December 4th, it dropped to the third most viewed bill in Congress.

Congress critters pay attention to these sort of things. Here is the link to the site that tracks the most viewed bills, if you want to see how the HPA is doing in the weeks ahead.

The HPA is common sense reform legislation that is long overdue.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The Hearing Protection Act has been one of the most viewed bills in Congress since Donald Trump's election.

[Gaffer]

The amount of pure bureaucratic sh!t one has to go through just to get a legal 22LR suppressor is ridiculous. The costs are far beyond what they are worth in terms of dollars.

[JamesP81]

Does anyone know what the exact terms of the bill are?

I’ve always felt SBRs shouldn’t even be governed by NFA, and silencers should be a Title 1 / 4473 item.

[grobdriver]

It's just my luck - I will no doubt be the very last person in the country to have my form 4 approved and pick up my suppressor, probably on the same day as President Trump signs this bill into law.

On the bright side, I can then go out and buy more without any of the associated tomfoolery...

[moovova]

My kid’s Ruger SR22 came with the threaded barrel JUST for this reason.

[marktwain]

silencers should be a Title 1 / 4473 item.

---

That is precisely what this bill does, and it preserves NFA status for state laws that require NFA status for silencers to be legal.

It is a clever bit of simple legislation.

[Ancesthntr]

Let’s get that passed and signed into law, PRONTO!

Followed shortly thereafter by the Firearms Revenue Enhancement Enabling Act (pronounced “free”), which would repeal Title 18, Section 922(o) so as to enable the BATFE to raise more revenue by selling tax stamps on newly-produced full auto firearms (at $200 a pop - that’ll add up pretty quickly).

I’d prefer to see the entire 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA be repealed, but that’s probably a bit much to realistically hope for.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Slightly O.T., but I wish Trump would appoint one of the honchos from the NRA or GOA as head of the BATFE (Ted Nugent?) just to put a stick in the gun grabbers eyes.

[Ancesthntr]

Ted Nugent or Eric Pratt would make the Leftists’ heads explode - and we might actually get both some good legislation and a significant culling back of the unconstitutional activities of that agency.

[MHGinTN]

Since a sound suppressor for a firearm is so easy to make, there should be no laws for or against it. There should be no registration of same.

[marktwain]

Since a sound suppressor for a firearm is so easy to make, there should be no laws for or against it. There should be no registration of same.

---

I agree. This is a very big step in that direction. Consider what it means. It means that any person can make a silencer for their own use without any tax or license. That is the current federal law for rifles or shotguns.

At the same time, it means any commercial manufacture of silencers will be licensed and meet the state laws that *only* allow suppressors that are considered legal under the NFA.

It is a brilliant move in the correct direction.

[nobamanomore]

Yes it is. I shoot thousands of rounds a year, and have lost a good part of my hearing because of it (along with driving race cars).

Of course the advantage is that I can act deaf when a whining liberal opens their mouth!

[backwoods-engineer]

There are much better choices than Nugent. Larry Pratt of GOA, for one. Mike Seeklander, former Air Marshall and famous firearms trainer, for another.

[The KG9 Kid]

Repealing USC 922(o) needs to be in there along with the bill.

Just do it. Let the liberals howl. They’ll shut up eventually after they find some new outrage.

[ctdonath2]

“The costs are far beyond what they are worth in terms of dollars”

I’ve concluded that people will (broadly speaking) tolerate taxes if they are under 33% of item price. With the NFA suppressor tax being $200, people won’t be comfortable buying unless the price is at least $600 - so what sells is military grade extra quiet cans. Nobody wants a disposable $20 suppressor if they’re paying 10x that just in taxes.

[ctdonath2]

Overturning 922(o) would net the BATFE a fortune overnight, and backlog gun manufacturing for years.